Hatten v. Rathman

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 6/17/14. (ASL)

Download PDF
FILED 2014 Jun-17 AM 10:38 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION TIMOTHY HATTEN, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Petitioner, v. JOHN T. RATHMAN, Respondent. Case No.: 1:14-cv-0739-MHH-SGC MEMORANDUM OPINON On April 28, 2014, the magistrate judge filed a report and recommended that the Court dismiss without prejudice the petition for a writ habeas corpus that Timothy Hatten filed. (Doc. 3). The magistrate judge concluded that, although the petition invokes 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Mr. Hatten is challenging his conviction and sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. (Id.). Accordingly, the magistrate judge construed the petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Because a prisoner must pursue a § 2255 motion before the sentencing court, the magistrate judge found that this Court lacks jurisdiction over Mr. Hatten’s petition. (Id.). In response to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, Mr. Hatten filed a document entitled “Petitioner’s Petition as a Matter of Law Moves to Correct Clear Manifest Erroneous Error of Law Moves Honorable Chieftain United States District Court Justice Sharon Lovelace Blackburn, to Rescind and 1 Revoke Magistrate Erroneous (R&R).” (Doc. 4).1 The Court will construe this filing as Mr. Hatten’s objection to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation or, alternatively, as a motion. Mr. Hatten contends that the magistrate judge did not employ the forgiving pleading standard for pro se litigants which the United States Supreme Court enunciated in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). (Doc. 4 at 2-3). Consistent with the Haines decision, this Court has held Mr. Hatten’s petition “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines, 404 U.S. at 520-21. Nevertheless, even under this relaxed pleading standard, the Court concludes that Mr. Hatten is challenging his conviction and sentence, such that his petition arises under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 rather than 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Consequently, Mr. Hatten must seek relief in the Southern District of Florida; this Court lacks jurisdiction over his petition. Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, the Court ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s report and ACCEPTS her recommendation. To the extent that Mr. Hatten’s most recent filing (Doc. 4) contains objections to the report and recommendation, the objections are 1 Although Mr. Hatten addressed his filing to the Honorable Sharon Lovelace Blackburn, this case was randomly assigned to the undersigned judge who serves as a district court judge for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. 2 OVERRULED. To the extent that the filing (Doc. 4) is a motion, the motion is DENIED. Accordingly, the petition is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A final judgment will be entered. DONE and ORDERED this June 17, 2014. _________________________________ MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?